1987 (1) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of copper and copper alloy products under Central Excise duty - Interpretation of Item 26AA and Item 68 - Correct classification of flat products over 10 mm thickness - Reliance on earlier Tribunal decision - Applicability of ISI specifications and Board orders.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the classification of copper and copper alloy products for the purpose of Central Excise duty under Item 26AA and Item 68 of the First Schedule. Initially, the authorities assessed the goods under Item 26A until the introduction of the residuary Item 68. The specific issue in question pertains to the classification of flat products over 10 mm thickness. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector classified these products under Item 68, resulting in a duty imposition. The appellant challenged this classification through an appeal.

During the appeal proceedings, the appellant's Director referred to a prior Tribunal decision (Order No. B-94/83, dated 28-2-1983) where the classification under the residuary item was upheld. The appellant requested an adjournment of the present appeal, citing similarities in the issues involved and the pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The respondent did not present additional grounds to distinguish the earlier ruling, arguing that the issue was governed by the prior decision.

In its analysis, the Tribunal acknowledged that the issues in the current appeal were identical to those in the earlier case, where the classification under the residuary item was deemed correct. The Tribunal emphasized that the description of the sub-item in question pertained to crude forms of copper and copper alloys, excluding extruded rods. The Tribunal also considered the nature of extruded sections as precision goods falling outside the scope of Item 26A, justifying their classification under the residuary Item 68.

The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing the earlier decision and the absence of compelling reasons to deviate from it. The Tribunal highlighted that the reliance on ISI specifications and Board orders by the appellants did not alter the correct classification under the residuary item. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the products under Item 68 based on the precedent set by the previous ruling and the lack of substantive grounds to challenge it.